100% Predictable Fraud From Government Climate Scientists

In 1990, Tom Karl and the IPCC showed that Earth was much warmer 900 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP.)

1990 IPCC Report

But by 1995, climate scientists had made the decision to get rid of the inconvenient MWP.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

By 2001, Michael Mann and the IPCC followed up on their plans, and eliminated the MWP.

IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001

The 1990 IPCC report also had detailed Arctic sea ice satellite data from NOAA, which showed that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower in 1973 than in 1979.

1990 IPCC Report

Government scientists also knew in 1985 that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower in the 1940’s and 1950’s than it was in 1973.

Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect

The pre-1979 Arctic sea ice data was extremely inconvenient, so NOAA simply made it disappear. They now start their graphs right at the peak year in 1979. I have been trying to obtain the pre-1979 IPCC satellite data from NOAA for over six months, and they have been “unable to locate it.”

ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf

In the 1950’s scientists were well aware that the “thin crust” of Arctic sea ice was disappearing, and predicted an ice-free Arctic within a generation.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

Scientists were also aware that by 1970 Arctic sea ice was getting much thicker and more extensive.

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York Times

This prior warmth and subsequent cooling in the Arctic was inconvenient, so NOAA and NASA made it disappear.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

In 1985 Phil Jones At CRU showed a large global warming spike around 1940, followed by about 0.5C cooling.

Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect

The 1940’s spike was inconvenient for Phil Jones and the rest of his cohorts, so they discussed how to get rid of it.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

And that they did. They have completely eliminated the 1940’s blip and subsequent cooling. It no longer exists in the temperature record.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png

NASA has also removed the inconvenient 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling, just as scientists discussed doing.

1981 version     2017 version

In 2013, the post-2000 global warming pause was central to the IPCC report.

Global warming pause ‘central’ to IPCC climate report – BBC News

This was inconvenient to NOAA and NASA, so Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt made it disappear.

Evidence against a global warming hiatus? — ScienceDaily

There was no pause « RealClimate

This fraud was so blatant that even NOAA’s principal scientist John Bates, and PennState hockey stick fraudster Michael Mann called it out.

Climate scientists versus climate data | Climate Etc.

Nature Climate Change February 1, 2016

In 1990, NASA determined that satellite temperatures were more accurate than surface temperatures, and should be adopted as their standard.

01 Apr 1990 – EARTHWEEK: A DIARY OF THE PLANET Global Warming

Satellite data does not give NASA the answer they want, so the US space agency ignores satellites, and instead releases fraudulent surface temperatures.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The fraud is not limited to temperature data. In 1982, NASA’s James Hansen showed that sea level stopped rising after the mid-1950’s for twenty years. NASA has since erased this pause, and turned it into an acceleration.

NASA 1982    NASA 2016

This is just a small sampling of the climate fraud being done right under our noses by NASA, NOAA and CRU. It is essential that the Trump administration end this fraud.

The biggest fraud of all though was John Cook’s 97% consensus paper, which gave politicians and journalists license to ignore all data, and rely simply on appeals to fake authority.

Under the Trump administration, government employees stand to make huge amounts of money by whistleblowing fraud. Contact Kent Clizbe for details.

Kent Clizbe
Fraud Detection Services
kent@kentclizbe.com
www.credibilityassurance.com
571 217 0714

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to 100% Predictable Fraud From Government Climate Scientists

  1. Andy DC says:

    I have been to the NOAA Library hundreds of times where there were plenty of records going back to 1871 and beyond. Now they say they can’t locate data going back a few years before 1979? Something does not seem right.

  2. Steve Case says:

    Meanwhile methane continues to be reported as 86 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and as far as I know there’s hardly any attention paid to that very obvious misrepresentation of the the facts.

  3. Steve Case says:

    The fraud is not limited to temperature data. In 1982, NASA’s James Hansen showed that sea level stopped rising after the mid-1950’s for twenty years. NASA has since erased this pause, and turned it into an acceleration.

    Yes indeed, Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group is overdue for its first release of 2017, and sooner or later Jason-3 will come line. Adjustments are nearly always made with each new release, but the magnitude for the upcoming changes due to Jason-3 could be interesting.

  4. AndyG55 says:

    Two pauses separated by the 1998 El Nino step
    1980 – 1997.

    • AndyG55 says:

      then 2001 – 2015.5

    • AndyG55 says:

      Before the 2016 El Nino, you could actually do a back calculated pause to around 1996, (where the central trend is =0) or if you want to use statistical significance, way further (back some 26 years iirc)
      In December in RSS, the temperature of the decaying El Nino transient dropped back below that zero trend line

  5. TA says:

    Great presentation, Tony. If I were on their jury, I would have to vote to convict them of fraud.

  6. Edmonton Al says:

    Tony
    Your evidence of fraud is overwhelming.
    How can any of those fraudsters deny your evidence?

  7. Dan Paulson says:

    Tony, I have located the satellite data for ice extent from 1972-1977. It is ESMR data.

    I have neither the competence nor tools to make use of this data. I’m sure you will know where and how to put it to use.

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0009_esmr_seaice/

  8. Dan Paulson says:

    It’s funny. The NSIDC site says this FTP is no longer available, however in the users guide, it has a link directly to the ftp site. Regardless, it appears that the HTTPS data they provide is the same. At least the date stamps and file sizes are identical.

    http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0009#

  9. I would like to tell you of my latest book, “Human Caused Global Warming”.
    Available on ‘Amazon.ca’ and ‘Indigo/Chapters’.
    http://www.drtimball.com

  10. John Niclasen says:

    NOAA/NMC/CAC sea ice data for the period 1973-1990 at NSIDC:

    http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g00917_nmc_seaice_extent/index.html

    FTP with the data at sidads.colorado.edu:

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G00917/

  11. duke silver says:

    These people are either appropriately scare scheitless, or incredibly smug in having created plausible deniability. Personally, I think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law in order to dissuade other scientists, politicos, and political-scientists from pushing another similar hoax in the future.

  12. Gary says:

    This appears to give the title of AlGores emotional slideshow “An Inconvenient Truth” new meaning.

  13. Mann Fell'd says:

    Are the East Anglia emails showing them cooking the numbers assembled together and highlighted like this anywhere? For those of us without the science backgrounds to understand the nuances of some of the graphs, those highlighted like in this post are quite convincing to grab and show friends and family who are skeptical.

  14. jack says:

    A beautiful presentation.
    Thank you.

  15. I attend the a meetup called “The Melbourne Energy Network”

    https://www.meetup.com/The-Melbourne-Energy-Network/

    All the others are around 40 years younger than me. I am the only one who dares show any sort of skepticism about the “Global Warming” nonsense. They are all intelligent people – professional engineers and so on.

    I am really impressed by the power of the media and schooling. Critical thinking is so very old-fashioned. I don’t know what they will be telling their own kids when they are a little older. I guess “Global Cooling” will be back in vogue by then.

  16. MaxDefl says:

    I agree with Alfred.

    As a Professional Engineer myself (Civil), I am surprised at many in my field. Most of them used to require explicit proof or documentation of facts, not the use of metaphor or hyperbole. Now if you are not on the climate change/sustainability bandwagon, you might as well be a heretic burned at the stake during the Inquisition.

    I know that in this day and age, sensationalization gets you funding, especially in the academic community, but I wanted think that at some point and time, the search for knowledge would overwhelm the desire to get rich. I have been so wrong. They all want their 15 minutes of fame, the desire to be published, the need to be hailed as the savior of mankind. Not too sure that anyone does research for the sciences sake these days.

    As a global warming skeptic, I am not saying that everything they believe is wrong. I am not sure of the reasons for things to occur. We live in such a complex system, can we point to one thing as the only reason? Can we even entertain the idea that we don’t yet understand it all? What impact do other factors have? Why can’t they swallow their pride, and let us know that, maybe, just maybe….they didn’t have a full grasp of all of the factors which affect climate? Until there is a model that unifies all of the information (solar output, solar winds, cloud cover, carbon dioxide, methane, population, maybe even gravity and tides!), we are cherrypicking data to substantiate what is popular, what is financially beneficial, what is politically beneficial. I can see emissions regulation to combat air pollution, which can be easily substantiated. Not so much on the warming.

    I just want to believe that it is science, not money or politics driving the bus. As a member of my generation, I also have a problem with folks cramming things down my throat without being able to question them, or even worse, be demonized for not agreeing with them without any form of rebuttal.

    • AndyG55 says:

      ditto !

      … but it quite obviously is politics and AGENDA that is driving the AGW bus.

      The CO2 HATRED we see is totally unsubstantiated.…. but it exists in many areas.

      I have tried to figure out why, but am at a loss to explain how this ANTI-science could become so pervasive, and how brain-washed many, in all fields, have become.. !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *